while I certainly agree that starting from a raw file and having the necessary skills you can arrive at a better image than the OOC jpg, from all these debates JPG vs RAW I have the feeling that the RAW fans quite often start from the concept that once you shoot jpg you cannot do anything to improve your image.

I may have missed it but I didn't see anyone saying this... the original point made by the OP (with an example to show exactly what he considered better) was that "sometimes the jpg is better" or for the full sentence:

"Not sure what the moral of the story is except take a look at both when editing, and always shoot both, not just RAW. Sometimes the RAW can save your butt, sometimes the JPG is better."

I have right clicked on my mouse and downloaded the first image of Alan. With a quick adjustment of shadows and highlights in Photoshop, I have arrived at a final image that is quite acceptable, even starting from a downloaded and compressed jpg image.

By the way, how do people use their photos for? Only to see them at a computer screen at 100% zoom just to find every possible flaw? In my case I print a photobook every time I make a travel around the world. Believe me, looking at my pictures printed at even a double spread page, it is impossible (at least for me) to see the imperfections that I saw viewing them at 100% zoom on the computer screen.

No one is saying that you can't shoot jpg and can't get good results for your photobook. Are you saying that you can get better results for your photobook shooting jpg? Otherwise, I'm not sure how your comments are related to the original topic. Or are you just trying to turn this into the usual raw versus jpg debate?